US v. Charles Ward

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cr-00032-JPB-JES-1,3:11-cv-00042-JPB-JES Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998923985]. Mailed to: Charles Ward. [12-6189]

Appeal: 12-6189

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/24/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6189

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES WARD, a/k/a Chuck,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge.
(3:09-cr-00032-JPB-JES-1; 3:11-cv-00042JPB-JES)

Submitted:

August 22, 2012

Decided: August 24, 2012

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and Diaz, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Ward, Appellant Pro Se.
Thomas Oliver Mucklow,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6189

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/24/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Charles

Ward

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order adopting, in part, the recommendations of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2012) motion, as well as its order denying him a certificate of
appealability.
appealable

The

unless

district
a

court’s

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

dismissal

justice

or

order

judge

is

issues

not
a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling

is

debatable,

and

that

the

motion

states

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Ward has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
2

We

Appeal: 12-6189

Doc: 10

dispense

with

Filed: 08/24/2012

oral

argument

Pg: 3 of 3

because

the

facts

and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3